What did you use? I usually use Syncthing to get my files onto/from the Deck. I also use it to sync my mods, that way I have the same experience whether I turn on the PC or the Deck.
I had Syncthing setup on my deck from when i first got it, but Syncthing was having issues for me and my Network is slow as fuck (50 mbps). So instead i opted to use a 64 GB USB Drive that has that swivel thing that goes from USB-C to USB 3 and transfer it via that. I compressed everything before hand into a zip file just to make it faster and quicker
Always appreciate your posts man! Thanks for taking time out of your day to add content to Lemmy! I have a question: I’ve played Control which references Alan Wake and the story definitely piqued my interest. I do own the first but haven’t played it. At this point should I play the first before the second? Or just go with the second one?
I’d say it’s worth it to play the First one before playing the second one. The second one does a decent job of catching you up to speed, but I still think playing the first one is well worth it for the narrative value
I absolutely love Assassin’s Creed Unity! I just finished it last week, and in my opinion, it’s the best AC game ever. I really enjoyed AC1, AC2, and Brotherhood, but I can’t stand the newer RPG-style AC games. Unity, even in 2025, still looks amazing with its stunning graphics and incredible parkour. It’s one of the last AC games that truly makes you feel like an assassin rather than an overpowered RPG superhero.
I really wish it hadn’t flopped, because if they hadn’t I think Ubisoft would have continued down that route.
From what I have heard Shadows is returning at least the Stealth and Parkour, (and I’ve heard Mirage is similar but I’m not sure), so I’m excited. But I’m not counting on it until post launch
I think it is pretty much confirmed that Unity’s poor launch led to the hard pivot to the “modern” RPG style AC games. I remember reading about it at the time. The only reason Syndicate wasn’t changed was it was already too far into production when Unity released.
I appreciate what the RPG titles tried, but I desperately want the Unity-Syndicate style format to come back. I feel like the pivot was too extreme just because of Unity
I really like Unity. I’ll always have a special nostalgic feeling about the Ezio saga that makes me hold them in especially high regard, but even so Unity is probably my favourite to play. Revolutionary Paris is an amazing setting and it’s so beautifully realised too, and the parkour system with free run up/down and all the myriad animations lets you do some of the most slick things in the entire AC series if you get good at it. I’ve linked AC Unity choreography before, but just look at what people can do when they’re good at this game.
I still to this day have never played the Ezio saga outside of revelations. It’s on my list, but I’ve always favored the AC Games in the modern era more. I think I might try and go for it after Unity
And yeah, I agree. Unity’s setting is amazing and Parkour system is so badass with how smooth it is. I wish I had the patience to reach that skill level of Parkour in the game
I have no idea how AC2 holds up, honestly. I’ve never replayed it and it was my first game in the series - I didn’t own a Playstation when the first one came out so I only experienced it through being over at a friend’s house and watching him play it, occasionally taking turns for missions. Playing AC2 was an incredible experience back when it released and I’m full of fond memories, but I don’t know how well it’s aged. It’s probably a less impactful experience now than it was 15 years ago.
Hopefully it holds up as well as other games of its age I’ve found then, because I’ve heard such amazing things about the Ezio trilogy and I’m excited to pick it up one day, despite how I keep putting it off
Imo Unity was probably the last “great” Assassin’s Creed game. I love the customization in it, the parkour and stealth like everyone else mentioned, even the combat was pretty fun.
I love this game. It has several drawbacks, some of the physics make things feel like you’re underwater the whole time, the wanted system can be extremely irritating at the worst moments, and for a game with a world that is extremely alive the missions are extremely on rails where often even doing something slightly off the developers intended path will fail you
But despite that I still love it. The game is gorgeous years later. They put so much effort into the world. It’s not just the graphics, it’s every detail that just makes it feel so alive. Walking around the town the npcs are so thought out, have so much dialogue. The animals too. I remember playing other open world games after and just noticing more so how lifeless they felt in comparison; that npcs would repeat dialogue after 2 or 3 lines, animals would run in circles, etc. and the story is great.
I hope that once gta6 is done they turn to rdr3. Its overall a much better series with a stronger narrative, better characters, etc. with red dead they seem to not be as overly concerned with shitting it up with online bullshit and microtransactions though so the series might be done for
I’ve heard some really compelling ideas to continue Red Dead Redemption either spiritually (as in with a different or slight altered cast) or literally (take Jack at the end of 1 and do something with it or tell a prequel story to RDR2). I’m really hoping Rockstar does make a 3, the franchise is too amazing to let it just die like that.
I remember so many people being furious at rockstar for not releasing dlc on the scope of gta4 but honestly with this game I don’t know what form that narrative would take that could be satisfying.
The main narrative is concluded decisively obviously. It’s a prequel so continuing with John would just be rdr1. Another undead nightmare is eh, zombies are so played out. I guess you could fill in what went on with Dutch or some of the others that show up in rdr1 but frankly I don’t really want to play as them. I suppose you could intro some new character that’s part of their new gang. I dunno. I get why they didn’t prioritize it (well that and more so that dlc costs a ton to develop for a pitiful return relative to something like gta online, which is kind of sad)
Yeah. Adding onto the Undead Nightmare one, i just don’t feel like it would fit the vibe of Red Dead 2. As much as i’d love another one, Red Dead 2 feels like it takes itself a bit more seriously than the first one. i’m not really sure what it is, but i’m just not sure an Undead Nightmare would fit at all.
I think it was the illness. Even without the illness based on the first games ending and the fact that Arthur was not mentioned or existed within it I was pretty sure I knew how rdr2 was going to end before I started but the illness gave it such a somber tone. Arthur recognized his mortality and really started to reflect.
It’s been ages since I played rdr1 but as far as I remember John was more “I’m doing this to be done, for my family!”. The tone was much lighter as a result even though there were moments that were heavy. And the characters weren’t as developed so I didn’t care as much. Dutch was just a fucking monster in that game, bill and Javier were just props. But rdr2 fleshed them all out so much
I’ll get through the RDR2 story one day. I played it for two stints last year but I just space out and lose immersion every time the main story forces you to kill one hundred lawmen in the middle of a town. For a game that put so much effort into making the open world vibrant, alive and dynamic you face very little consequences for committing what can only be classified as genocide in the main story.
It might well be a me-problem. I had the same issue with Sleeping Dogs that I just finished last week. So I might just have a fundamental problem with the type of gameplay design these kinds of games go for and the fundamental ludonarrative dissonance you have to be able to look past to enjoy them. I just have a hard time squaring off war crime levels of mass murder as “getting into a little too much trouble”. Killing a lawman or two as things get out of hand in Valentine? That’s getting into a bit too much trouble. But Arthur Morgan literally kills hundreds upon hundreds of people and that just breaks my immersion.
The gameplay is definitely way exaggerated because it would not be very engaging to get into one gunfight per chapter. I interpret these parts of many games symbolically—the amount of violence is to make a point. The game would be very short or really boring if it was realistic in that regard.
Arthur is a really complicated character who, despite being sometimes sympathetic, is ultimately not a good person. Even if you make only “good honor” choices, his story is still filled with points where he struggles to reconcile his actions with his beliefs. You wouldn’t want to live near a person like Arthur in reality, and he doesn’t like being that person.
RDR2 is ultimately a story about bad people struggling against other bad people. One group represents the lawless banditry that is dying out, while the other is the capitalist yoke that wears a nice suit. Lots of normal people get caught in the middle, and they usually suffer for it.
It succeeds for me because it still keeps the humanity in focus. Bad people are humans too. It does not absolve them, but it underscores the conditions that can manufacture them.
I don’t really disagree with you about the nature of the story, and I don’t have anything against the overall narrative. I just personally think the story could have been told with fewer bloodbaths and outright massacres and still be compelling. In fact, for me every innocent you kill would feel more impactful morally and narratively if there were fewer of them.
But maybe I’m out of touch with the attention span of the modern mind.
There’s nothing wrong with having different preferences. It doesn’t have to be because someone has a worse or better attention span.
I personally do think the number of enemies that had to be killed should have been decreased. For me, it was mostly because it became comical sometimes that more guys kept coming out of the woodwork. After the fiftieth O’Driscoll you kill, you start to wonder if it’s a gang or a country’s military.
I’m sorry. The attention span comment wasn’t directed at you personally, it was reflecting on your point that people would find it too slow and boring with fewer kills. It wasn’t meant as a jab at all.
I think it sounds like we’re mostly in agreement. And yeah, the O’Driscolls spawning in and popping up like whack-a-moles is another great example!
I mean it is an era where up and moving 100 miles basically meant you started your life over. But that was kind of the plot: they were a gang of that era where they could run in a town, wreak havoc, disappear, and the infrastructure didn’t yet exist to reliably track them across the gigantic land mass that is North america.
But by the time the game rolls around the beginnings of the modern federal government are happening and agencies to track people like them across the country are in full swing. So all of a sudden their way of life is coming to a close, quickly. Instead of just some pissing off a sheriff in a town and never being able to go back there, occasionally having a bounty hunter after you, you now have a huge team of people with the resources of a government coming for you.
I think part of it that’s understated is the size of the map. The map is obviously big for a game but it’s supposed to be a huge chunk of America. When you compare the geography of the map to America it’s somewhat clear that it’s supposed to be a gigantic swath of America, from like Montana down to Louisiana and across to Texas. You can ride across the map in 20 min but obviously this would take months irl. Obviously this is about gameplay balance but as a result you lose the sense that Arthur is going extremely far away when he’s going from valentine to st denis, when in reality that would be like a month of riding and crossing several states. Even if he did a genocide that would probably shake the heat for a little while back then
They did obviously play it up of course. If you literally murdered everyone in a town back then there would probably be more of a response from the surrounding towns to find you. But gamers like violence and it’s again about balancing gameplay vs authenticity. usually gameplay wins because otherwise you end up with a boring game
Recently i have a fancy gaming PC to handle all the heavy work loads. Before that though (as in last january), i was limited to my Steam Deck as my only gaming device. The thing i learned then is that the hard part is finding a good balance between resolution and Graphic Levels.
This isn’t formal advice from an expert or anything (i’m a Computer Science student who learned this stuff by messing with it), but I’d also advise to stay away from anything like DLSS and FSR unless you need them or you can drive them at high resolutions. They are kind of like AI upscaling for your game from what i know. If you have a low powered device, it’s a miracle worker but it also muddys the picture. I’ve also heard people say this same thing about TAA, but i don’t know about that one.
If you’re doing screenshots on steam i’d also advice going into settings, and telling it to save screenshots as an uncompressed copy. Steam will save it as a JPG which can crunch the hell out of it.
Another thing though is that i’ve noticed that when i do these screenshots it looks a lot better then what they look like in gameplay, so that’s something i’d keep in mind too
That’s definitely the vibe i was getting towards the end when i first tried to play through. It felt like it was dragging on a bit. I almost wonder if all the cut content would have made it drag on longer or if it would help with the pacing
pixelfed.social
Najstarsze